The Flying Boat Forum from www.seawings.co.uk

Welcome to the first ever Forum dedicated to the history and operations of the world's Flying Boats and their crews brought to you by SEAWINGS. Enjoy your stay and come back often! You are more than welcome to contribute, however small or large. Enjoy!

Actually there are 3 Gooses there.The first and forth are N70AL (cn B125 McK. Sn 1226),the second, third and last are N77AQ (cn B62 McK. Sn 1205) and the 2 Blue Gooses are the same airplane, N600SE (cn B123 McK. Sn 1201) is the new registration.NONE of them are new build Antillies airplanes, all were converted by McKinnon back in the 1960s and early 70s.Antillies hasn't finished their first Goose yet that I know of and as far as I know it will be a piston powered airplane.(They will be offering both versions though)

Doesn't surprise me. They're asking $US2m a each! That's silly money. You can buy 4 HU-16's for that amount! For a new amphibian, I'd go with the Aerovolga LA-8. The price jumps significantly with the Lycoming engines though. There's nothing wrong with LOM engines as they've been around for years and can run on automobile gasoline.

Agreed, that IS silly money to most of us, but to the people who can afford it, it isn't that bad.That 2 Million for a new Turbine Goose isn't far off what an old Turbine Goose is going for these days.A standard Grumman built piston Goose, well appointed, in good condition is going for at or just over a million these days and a Turbine Goose is upwards of 1.5 million so a new build T. Goose for 2 mil. isn't that far out. (Remember, the NEWEST Goose is 64 years old)You CAN get an Albatross for a heck of a lot less money than a Goose, BUT then you have to feed it.Those big Wright engines on an Albatross burn over 100 gallons of gas an hour EACH !A piston Goose will burn less than half that and go just about as fast, it will operate in and out of a smaller area with a single pilot as crew (versus the manditory 2 man crew needed in an Albatross).A Turbine Goose has a higher fuel burn, but goes faster and has better T/O performance too.It really isn't fair to compare the two airplanes.

As to the AeroVolga, it is a nice looking design, but I haven't seen any perfomance specs yet to know how it compares to other light amphibs.It doesn't look to have the same load capabilites as a Widgeon and certainly much less than a Goose.If anything I'd say it would be more inline with a Lake or TwinBee.Do you have a site adddress that has a spec sheet for it, I'd like to know more about the airplane anyway.

MrWidgeon wrote:Actually there are 3 Gooses there.The first and forth are N70AL (c/n B-125 McK. s/n 1226),the second, third and last are N77AQ (c/n B-62 McK. s/n 1205) and the 2 Blue Gooses are the same airplane, N600SE (cn B-123 McK. s/n 1201) is the new registration.NONE of them are new build Antilles airplanes, all were converted by McKinnon back in the 1960s and early 70s.Antilles hasn't finished their first Goose yet that I know of and as far as I know it will be a piston powered airplane.(They will be offering both versions though)

The two photos of the blue and yellow turbine Goose are indeed the very same aircraft. The "N600SE" registration is fake and "photo-shopped" - I know because I'm the one who did it. (I actually used Microsoft's very basic Paint program!) That turbine Goose is really N640. The registration "N600SE" belongs to a 1984 Thorp T-18 homebuilt in Arizona. We do like the way it looks on a Goose however and we may have to make that T-18 owner an "offer he can't refuse."

More importantly, although N640 is currently registered as "McKinnon G-21G s/n 1201", it is NOT a "McKinnon" G-21G and it is NOT serial no. "1201". McKinnon did not "build" it or ever re-certify it under his TC (4A24). He simply modified it in 1967 for the Bureau of Land Management in Alaska using many of his STC's (including SA1589WE to install PT6A-20 turbines.) From 1967 until 2001, it remained formally identified and registered as "Grumman G-21A s/n B-123" albeit with the added notation "Turboprop" on all of its official documentation.

In 2001, the guy who bought it in 1996 as a surplus stripped-out hulk from the Alaska Dept of Public Safety wrote a letter to the FAA and declared that N640 "Grumman G-21A s/n B-123" had been "disassembled and scrapped". He then wrote a second letter (on the very same day) claiming to have built a "new" model G-21G aircraft from "spare parts" and asking to have the registration of "N640" transferred to that "new" aircraft. He then registered the "new" N640 as if it actually had been built by McKinnon, listing "McKinnon Enterprises" as the "assembler" instead of himself on a 14 CFR 47.33(d) affidavit and as "manufacturer" on the registration application. He also chose to use an invalid (i.e an already previously used) serial number (1201) for the airplane that he claimed to have built from spare parts.

BTW: "Scrap" parts are not the same thing as "spare" parts and the regs for home or amateur-built copies of certified designs require the use of a serial number that specifically cannot be confused with a factory-issued serial number. That is why most homebuilts have serial numbers in the format of the builder's initials with a sequence number (usually just "-01") added to them. In this case, instead of using "LT-01" for example, it seems that "1201" was chosen specifically in order to be confused with a previously issued but "retired" McKinnon factory-issued serial number.

It wasn't and isn't McKinnon serial number "1201" because that was the first G-21C (with four 340 hp Lycoming GSO-480 engines) built in 1958 and registered as N150M. McKinnon G-21C s/n 1201 completely ceased to exist as such in June 1960 because N150M was further modified to become the first and only McKinnon model G-21D and as such it was re-issued another new McKinnon serial number (1251) at that time. FYI: prior to its initial conversion by McKinnon, it had been Grumman JRF-6B s/n 1147 and it had been operated by the Fish & Wildlife Service in Alaska as N709.

N640 as it is illustrated here therefore is NOT a McKinnon G-21G, but rather it is either still just a 9,200 lb. Grumman G-21A Turboprop or it is a 12,500 lb. amateur-built "Teufel" copy of a G-21G. Either way, all of the historical evidence is crystal clear (including the official "airworthiness" and "registration" records archived by the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch in Oklahoma City.) N640 was NOT built by McKinnon under TC 4A24 and should NOT be registered as such.

Finally, since I have talked to Bill (Mr. Widgeon) many times in the past year, I probably have already corrected him about one other thing; for the benefit of the rest of you, Antilles does not own the TC (654) for the original Grumman G-21A series Goose and has no rights much less plans to build piston versions of the Goose. All of the focus is on producing brand new 680 shp PT6A-powered Antilles G-21G Super Gooses.

Last edited by Rajay on Tue May 01, 2012 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dave has corrected me on MANY things in the past (like the serial number confusion).My knowledge of the Goose has been vastly increased by his emails and corrections.I figured out a few months after posting that photo that N600SE was a fake (Nice Job !).The info I got regarding the manufacture & sale of the piston Goose came from old liturature that has since been corrected.Thanks for keeping me in line Dave.

So, are Antilles still in business, and are they actually going to make any aircraft, or are they just another "fly by night" outfit like all those that were going to build replicas of RMS Titanic? Also, it's a pity they won't be making a piston egine version of the Goose. There's a lot af interest in the alternative to 100LL known as AGE-85. Strange how the Russians are making steady progress with the little Aerovolga LA-8, but production of both the Antilles Goose and the Seawind 300C have stalled. Maybe the Dornier Seastar will help provide much needed competition and they'll get their act together. Falsifying legal documents and registration as well as using images with fake registration in advertising goes along way to show the type of intergrity the company's management have.

Falsifying legal documents and registration as well as using images with fake registration in advertising goes along way to show the type of intergrity the company's management have.

Antilles is not in any way a "fly by night" outfit and is in fact still working hard trying to get new G-21G Super Goose aircraft into production. Unfortunately, the company's original investors were heavily leveraged in real estate and we all know what happened to that market over the last couple of years. Those investors simply ran out of money to spend on Antilles. Don't you worry about us and try harder not to get your panties into such a wad.

Speaking of panty wads, just which "legal documents and registration" are you accusing Antilles of falsifying?

The original photos of N640 and N77AQ were given to us by the actual owners of the photos and of the aircraft themselves to use as we saw fit in our marketing campaign. Those photos were in absolutely no way any kind of "legal document" and it was perfectly valid to alter them as we did. I also personally "airbrushed" the owner of N77AQ and his son out of a photo of it floating on pool-like blue water in Bahamas - the one in the print ad with the Antilles logo above as a matter of fact - because while he didn't mind us using the photos of his airplane, he preferred not to appear in them himself.

As far as the current registration of N640 is concerned (just in case you completely misunderstood everything I said about it earlier), Antilles had absolutely nothing to do with it either. All of its registration, certification, and conformity issues are completely the responsibility of its owner. I actually complained to the FAA about it and they chose to exercise typical bureacratic..., well, let's just say that they chose to do nothing at all about it.

Finally, I don't know what "intergrity" is, but I know that Antilles' management has plenty of integrity! On top of which, they also know how to spell - or at least how and when to use spell-check, which is more than some people can claim.

Stealer wrote:Maybe the Dornier Seastar will help provide much needed competition...

AND by the way, the Dornier Seastar is no competition at all for a G-21G Super Goose. First of all, Dornier is no farther along with its production than Antilles is with the G-21G but even more importantly, the G-21G is fully certified to operate in the US (read the little disclaimer/caveat in the Seastar's FAA type certificate) and the Super Goose has a payload more than 2,000 lbs greater than the Seastar's.

If you put full fuel into a Seastar, it won't carry any passengers (maybe one), and conversely if you fill the seats, you can't carry enough fuel to go more than 150 miles. It is also limited to something like 350 lbs of baggage.

On top of that, the G-21G cruises 20 to 40 knots faster than a Seastar (200-220 compared to only 180.)

A Super Goose on the other hand can carry full fuel and passengers and around 1,000 lbs of baggage ( 600 lbs fwd and 400 lbs aft.) It can also be painted many colors other than white - if you do that to a Seastar, the composite material it is made from absorbs too much solar energy and starts to soften or weaken!